Fight Club Papers

Being forced to represent a point of view that is contradictory to the one that you naturally form from your own logic and emotions helps greatly with advocating for a cause because you can present different viewpoints contrary to your argument to appeal to those who might not be convinced by your topic and argue against them to persuade those who might share the same arguments that contradict your natural point of view. the ability to argue for any position and clearly see pros and cons, irrespective of emotional bias is a huge skill that is largely unappreciated in persuasive writing. Even though debates can help someone think of counter-arguments, it's still difficult to argue against the counter-arguments with evidence, as some may be way too specific, illogical, or just too obscure to dream up as an opponent, and therefore impossible to debate against. In a verbal debate, its easier to appeal to a wider range of people as the focus is nearly all on the present point of debate, rather than one single point in a paper which is heavily dependent on all the rest of the words written. In a debate, it's much easier to broaden an argument without being obviously self-contradicting. However, a paper is easier because of the time-frame and the ample amount of sources that the author can accumulate to back up the arguments. Both situations have their own pros and cons, but generally people's minds can be more easily molded in the free-form dialogue of verbal debates and crossfire.